If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

GRAND FORKS, British Columbia, July 19, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Christian owners of a bed and breakfast in British Columbia have been ordered to pay around $4,500 in damages after they refused to rent a room to a homosexual couple.

Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie had reserved a room at the Riverbend B&B in Grand Forks in June 2009, but owners Les and Susan Molnar cancelled the reservation after realizing they were homosexual.

“To allow a gay couple to share a bed in my Christian home would violate my Christian beliefs and would cause me and my wife great distress,” Lee explained in tribunal documents.

Thomas and Eadie filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in their favour on Tuesday. Tribunal member Enid Marion ordered the Molnars to “cease and desist the discriminatory conduct,” though they closed the B&B down in September 2009 as a result of the incident.

Marion agreed with the two men that the Molnars violated section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which states that it is a discriminatory practice to “deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation” because of “sexual orientation.”

He ordered them to pay each man $1,500 for damages to “dignity, feelings and self-respect,” in addition to their travel expenses and lost wages for the tribunal proceedings.

“Having entered into the commercial sphere, the Molnars, like other business people, were required to comply with the laws of the province ... that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Marion.

Don't be fooled. This is what the fight for gay "marriage" is actually about: forcing everyone, particularly Christians, to agree with homosexuality or face fines or even imprisonment (like a pastor in Sweden did a while ago).

Don't be fooled. This is what the fight for gay "marriage" is actually about: forcing everyone, particularly Christians, to agree with homosexuality or face fines or even imprisonment (like a pastor in Sweden did a while ago).

US law has an exemption for owner occupied dwellings and boarding houses. So much for your drama.

I don't know Canada's laws but this surely wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) fly here in America. Private business reserves the right. That simple.

It depends on the size and nature of the business. As a rule, public accommodations are prohibited from discriminating, especially selectively. I'm willing to bet that this B&B has rented a room to two adults of the same sex in the past. As such, their decision to deny a room to these two men based on their religion would seem selective and discriminatory. But if the B&B is small enough then it's probably legal. If, however, their refusal came inconveniently close to the expected time of occupancy, then you are dealing with a broken contract and possible damages.

Only if you give them your credit card number.
I don't think most hotels are going to look twice at whether the couple renting the room are a gay couple, or just two friends who are traveling together.

I've never stayed in a B&B, because I don't pay to stay somewhere in which I have to share a bathroom with the other guests. I know someone who owns one in Saugatuck, MI, and she'd be bankrupt in a month if she banned gays from her establishment, being as it is in Saugatuck and all.

I have mixed feelings on this one-on one hand, I support the rights of gays to have the same rights I have. On the other hand, I also think that a business owner has the right to refuse service to customers. My friend advertises in gay magazines, because she doesn't have any issues with gays and knows her market. My advice to gays would be to look for B&Bs that advertise in gay magazines. If the one you see advertised in a mainstream publication has a Jesus fish in the ad, it's probably not one that you want to stay at.

US law has an exemption for owner occupied dwellings and boarding houses. So much for your drama.

First off, the vast majority of these actions will be in state courts, so while US Law may have an exemption, the states may or may not. Second, just because the law has that exemption now doesn't mean that it will always remain on the books. DADT was the law until last year. When the change is proposed, we can count on activists to agitate for it, even as they now claim not to have that intent. After all, thirty years ago, nobody took the idea of gays serving openly seriously, and gay marriage was something that the gay activists swore up and down that they would never impose. We get the incremental approach, honest.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

It depends on the size and nature of the business. As a rule, public accommodations are prohibited from discriminating, especially selectively. I'm willing to bet that this B&B has rented a room to two adults of the same sex in the past. As such, their decision to deny a room to these two men based on their religion would seem selective and discriminatory. But if the B&B is small enough then it's probably legal. If, however, their refusal came inconveniently close to the expected time of occupancy, then you are dealing with a broken contract and possible damages.

Or, they may not have rented to two adults of the same sex. You're speculating without any evidence. The only facts that we have at our disposal are that they cancelled the reservation when they found out that it was a gay couple, and that they had a religious objection to them in their own home.

I have mixed feelings on this one-on one hand, I support the rights of gays to have the same rights I have. On the other hand, I also think that a business owner has the right to refuse service to customers.

As do I. That's what Rand Paul was talking about when he said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and presumably subsequent rulings) was contrary to our Civil Rights under the Constitution. We are supposed to have freedom of association and the Constitution does not to my knowledge say "except when engaging in business". The courts have nonetheless found an exception for "public accommodations" as has Congress.

The only facts that we have at our disposal are that they cancelled the reservation when they found out that it was a gay couple, and that they had a religious objection to them in their own home.

I don't have paying guests in my home, do you? The court said that this is a business. Donald Trump can live in his apartment at The Plaza (or whatever) and it doesn't convert the building to a private residence. In the US, the operative fact (not covered in this article) would be the number of units in the Mennonite B&B.

The people who owned this place in question tried to maintain that it was "a ministry". Don't piss on the court;s head.